This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority on exceptions filed
by the Respondent to the attached Decision of the Administrative Law Judge. The
Charging Party (the Union) filed an opposition to the Respondent's exceptions.

The complaint alleged that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5)
of the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by
detailing bargaining unit employees from the Office of Family Assistance to a
Work Programs Task Force without providing the Union with prior notice and an
opportunity to bargain over the impact and the procedures for implementation of
its decision. The Judge concluded that the Respondent's conduct violated the
Statute as alleged. For the reasons which follow, we conclude, in agreement with
the Judge, that the Respondent committed the unfair labor practice alleged in
the complaint.

On November 7, 1986, the Union was certified as the exclusive representative
of certain employees of the Department of Health and Human Services, Family
Support Administration. The Office of Family Assistance (OFA) is a component of
the Family Support Administration. The [PAGE] establishment of a Work Programs
Division is one of the goals of a reorganization being undertaken in OFA. 1

In planning the creation of a Work Programs Division, the Respondent
identified employees within the OFA whose specialty was work programs or whose
functional area was similar to the tasks needed to be performed in work
programs. Based on this and other information, the Respondent selected and
assigned 15 employees to a Work Programs Task Force. The employees assigned to
the Task Force were informed by memorandum dated December 5, 1986, that the Task
Force was a major initiative and that because many of those assigned were new to
the work programs area and would assume new responsibilities, several
orientation sessions would be held.

Nine of the 15 employees assigned to the Task Force were detailed by a
Standard Form 52, Request for Personnel Action, which, among other things,
contained a statement that the employees were being detailed to unclassified
duties. None of those detailed had a change in pay, grade, working hours, or
office space. Although seven employees assigned to the Task Force continued to
do the same work under the same supervision, eight of the employees were
required to perform different work under different supervision. Several were
also required to undergo training and to engage in travel as a result of their
assignment to the Task Force. No employee was required to do work which was
beyond those general duties covered under his or her position description.

The details were originally scheduled to last no more than 120 days. However,
several employees were informed that the details might be extended. In addition,
OFA issued a memorandum on December 31, 1986, indicating its "hope" that the
Task Force would be officially established as a permanent division. Finally, the
record indicates that the details in fact were extended.

Applying the Authority's standard set forth in Department of Health and Human
Services, Social Security Administration, 24 FLRA 403, 405-08 (1986), the Judge
concluded that the implementation of the details resulted in a change in
conditions of employment having an impact or a [ v30 p2 ] reasonably foreseeable
impact on bargaining unit employees which gave rise to an obligation to bargain.
He noted specifically that the original length of the detail--120 days--was a
significant period of time. The Judge also noted the indicators that the Task
Force might become permanent and the fact that the detail was extended. Based on
these factors, the Judge found that assignments to the Task Force had the
potential to affect career and promotional opportunities of unit employees both
inside and outside the Task Force. He also found that since many of the detailed
employees were required to perform new tasks under different supervision, the
details had the potential to adversely affect their performance ratings.
Therefore, he concluded that the Respondent's failure to provide prior notice of
this change in conditions of employment and to bargain over procedures and
appropriate arrangements violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.

The Respondent contends that the record does not support the Judge's
conclusion that the Respondent's decision to detail employees to the Task Force
resulted in a more than de minimis change in working conditions of unit
employees so as to give rise to a bargaining obligation. Specifically, the
Respondent contends that there was no evidence that the details had the
potential to affect employees' career and promotional opportunities both inside
and outside the Task Force. The Respondent also disputes the Judge's conclusion
that the Respondent reasonably should have foreseen that the assignment of new
tasks to eight of the employees had a potential to adversely affect the
employees' performance ratings.

The Charging Party contends that the Judge's conclusions are supported by the
record. The Charging Party also argues that the Authority's decision in U.S
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 24 FLRA 743
(1986) and prior decisions of the Authority support the Judge's conclusions.

The General Counsel did not file an opposition to the Respondent's
exceptions.

we agree with the Judge for the reasons stated in his Decision that the
Respondent was obligated to give the Union prior notice of its decision to
detail bargaining unit employees to the Work Programs Task Force and an
opportunity to negotiate concerning the procedures it would observe in [ v30 p3 ]
effecting the details and appropriate arrangements for employees adversely
affected by the details.

In reaching this conclusion, the Judge applied the principle stated in Social
Security Administration. In determining whether a change in conditions of
employment requires bargaining, the Authority will place principal emphasis on
consideration of the nature and extent of the effect or reasonably foreseeable
effect of the change in conditions of employment on bargaining unit employees.
The Judge found that the selection of employees for the Task Force had the
potential to (1) affect their career and promotional opportunities, and (2)
adversely affect their performance ratings. His findings are supported by the
record and we adopt them. We note particularly the record evidence concerning
the potential permanent nature of the details. See U.S. Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 24 FLRA 743, 745-46 (1986).

The Respondent notes that none of the detailed employees were asked to
perform duties outside their official position descriptions. The Respondent
references the decision in Social Security Administration, in which the
Authority concluded that the reassignment of an employee to a position she
previously had held did not give rise to a bargaining obligation because the
change in conditions of employment was of a limited nature. The change in the
duties and tasks of the detailed employees in this case is more significant than
that in Social Security Administration. Several of the employees detailed in
this case had never performed the specific duties or functions assigned to them
on the Task Force, unlike the reassigned employee in Social Security
Administration.

Based on all of these factors, we reject the Respondent's contention that the
effect of the assignment of employees to the Task Force was limited in nature so
as not to give rise to a bargaining obligation.

Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and
section 7118 of the Statute, the Department of Health and Human Services, Family
Support Administration shall:

1. Cease and desist from: [ v30 p4 ]

(a) Failing and refusing to negotiate in good faith with the National
Treasury Employees Union, the exclusive representative of its employees,
concerning the procedures to be observed in detailing unit employees to the Work
Programs Task Force in the Office of Family Assistance and over appropriate
arrangements for unit employees adversely affected by the detail.

(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the Statute.

2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the purposes
and policies of the Statute:

(a) Upon request, negotiate in good faith with the National Treasury
Employees Union, the exclusive representative of its employees, concerning the
procedures to be observed in detailing unit employees to the Work Programs Task
Force in the Office of Family Assistance and over appropriate arrangements for
unit employees adversely affected by the detail.

(b) Post at its facilities copies of the attached Notice on forms to be
furnished by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Upon receipt of such forms,
they shall be signed by the the Director of the Family Services Administration
and shall be posted and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards and other places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure
that such Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.

(c) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations,
notify the Regional Director, Region 3, Federal Labor Relations Authority, in
writing, within 30 days from the date of this Order as to what steps have been
taken to comply.

Issued, Washington, D.C.,November 30, 1987.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY [ v30 p5 ]

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
AS ORDERED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
AND TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE
FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE
WE NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:

WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to negotiate in good faith with the National
Treasury Employees Union, the exclusive representative of our employees,
concerning the procedures to be observed in detailing unit employees to the Work
Programs Task Force in the Office of Family Assistance and over appropriate
arrangements for unit employees adversely affected by the detail.

WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the Federal Service
Labor - Management Relations Statute.

WE WILL upon request, negotiate in good faith with the National Treasury
Employees Union, the exclusive representative of our employees, concerning the
procedures to be observed in detailing unit employees to the Work Programs Task
Force in the Office of Family Assistance and over appropriate arrangements for
bargaining unit employees adversely affected by the detail.

This decision concerns an unfair labor practice complaint issued by the
Regional Director, Region III, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Washington,
D.C., against the Department of Health and Human Services, Family Support
Administration, (Respondent or FSA), based on a charge filed by the National
Treasury Employees Union (NTEU or Union). The complaint alleged, in substance
that Respondent violated section 7116 (a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service
Labor - Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. (the Statute), by
detailing employees of its Office of Family Assistance to a Work Programs Task
Force without providing the Union with notice and an opportunity to bargain over
the impact and procedures for implementation of its decision. [PAGE]

A hearing was held in Washington, D.C. The Respondent, Charging Party, and
the General Counsel were represented by counsel and afforded full opportunity to
be heard, adduce relevant evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
file post-hearing briefs. The Respondent and the Union filed helpful briefs, and
the proposed findings have been adopted where found supported by the record as a
whole. Based on the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses and
their demeanor, I make the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendations.

FSA is a primary national subdivision of the Department of Health and Human
Services. It was established as such in April 1986. The Office of Family
Assistance (OFA) is a component of FSA.

On November 7, 1986, the Federal Labor Relations Authority certified NTEU as
the exclusive representative of an appropriate unit of FSA's employees including
the employees who are the subject of this case. There are approximately 365
bargaining unit employees in FSA, including approximately 100 in OFA. NTEU was
aware of some reorganizational activities within FSA when the Union was
certified and expected that one of its first responsibilities would be to
negotiate proposals regarding reorganizational activities.

By letter dated November 10, 1986, Debra Kolodny, Assistant Counsel for
Negotiations, NTEU, requested that negotiations between NTEU and FSA begin
immediately on an interim bargaining agreement and a separate reorganization
agreement. Ms. Kolodny asked that NTEU be provided information concerning office
moves, plans for organizational restructuring, and any reductions in force. She
also presented interim proposals concerning reorganization and office moves,
including a proposal that once an office move is announced, volunteers be sought
before any employee is moved against his will.

On November 21, 1986 representatives of NTEU were briefed by FSA officials on
the proposed reorganization of FSA. Subsequently, during the week prior to
Thanksgiving, an OFA employee informed Ms. Kolodny that a major reorganization
would take place in OFA before Thanksgiving. Ms. Kolodny contacted Floyd
Brandon, Director, Division of Management and Regional Operations, informed him
of the report, and requested a briefing on whatever was going on in OFA and an
opportunity to bargain on whatever reorganization would take [ v30 p2 ] place.
Brandon assured Kolodny that no reorganization would take place that week and
that he would set up a meeting.

On December 2, 1986, NTEU representatives, including Debra Kolodny, were
briefed by Floyd Brandon and Marissa Huttinger, Director of the Division of
Administrative Services, OFA. Ms. Huttinger informed the NTEU representatives
that, under OFA's proposed reorganization plan, the major impact at some point
would be in the area of work programs where there would be new jobs, new
position descriptions, and new responsibilities for employees. She also
explained that there would be a Work Programs Task Force established where
employees would be detailed on a temporary basis for some time. No date was
given for the establishment of the Work Programs Task Force.

Work programs are programs to assist welfare recipients who are receiving aid
under Aid to Families for Dependent Children (AFDC). The programs are intended
to help the welfare recipients become self sufficient. There are four primary
work programs. One is job search, where welfare agencies throughout the country
assist clients in developing the skills to find work. A second program is the
community work experience program where welfare agencies will ask that welfare
recipients, in exchange for their welfare benefits, work for a period of time to
get work experience and develop new skills. The third program is a grant
diversion program. Under this program, a portion of the recipient's welfare
check is diverted to an employer who, in turn, hires the recipient for a period
of time and gives that much back as a salary supplement. The fourth program is
the WIN demonstration program which enables welfare agencies to manage their own
work programs.

Throughout the fall of 1986, OFA had been planning its proposed
reorganization, which included the creation of a Work Programs Division. As part
of the planning process, OFA had identified those employees who would have the
necessary skills for the work programs area. Those persons whose specialty was
work programs, or whose functional area was similar to the work that needed to
be done in work programs, were identified. In addition, employees were asked to
state where they would like to work. Some made their preferences known, and
others were asked if they would be interested in the Task Force. Some employees
who had work programs experience transferred out of OFA. Based on this
information, the staff was selected to perform the functions of the Task Force.
[ v30 p3 ]

On or about December 8, 1986, Respondent assigned 15 unit employees of OFA to
a Work Programs Task Force for details not to exceed 120 days. The work program
activities, previously performed by three or four divisions throughout OFA, were
to be performed by this Task Force. Work programs was a top priority of FSA, and
it was felt by management that by establishing the Task Force the new objectives
of FSA could be accomplished.

The Union was not provided with notice or an opportunity to negotiate the
impact and implementation of the detail of bargaining unit employees to the Task
Force.

On December 5, 1986, the newly appointed members of the Work Programs Task
Force were welcomed aboard by a written memorandum setting up orientation
sessions. The Task Force was described as a "major initiative." This memorandum
stated, in part, "Since many of us on the task force are new to the work
programs area, or will assume new responsibilities, I thought it would also be
helpful to have several orientation sessions on work program activities." The
person responsible for the memorandum, supervisor Carol Callahan, did not know
many of the employees on the Task Force when she approved that statement.
Several orientation sessions were held for the detailed employees to give them
an overview of work programs.

A Standard Form 52, Request for Personnel Action (SF-52), documenting the
detail of an employee to the Work Programs Task Force for a period not to exceed
120 days, was created for nine employees detailed to the Task Force who were
reporting from other components to a different supervisor. Since position
descriptions for a Work Programs Division did not exist, the SF-52 contained a
statement that the employees were being detailed to unclassified duties.
Attached to each SF-52 detailing an employee to the Task Force was a "Statement
of Functions for the Task Force." The "Statement of Functions" was a statement
referring to the functions of the Task Force and not to the duties of individual
employees. A SF-52 was not prepared for detailed employees performing the same
duties and reporting to the same supervisor.

None of the employees detailed to the Task force had a change in pay, grade,
working hours, or office space. Seven 2
of the 15 unit employees detailed to the Task [ v30 p4 ] Force performed exactly
the same duties on the Task Force as they were performing in their prior
positions.

The other eight unit employees selected for the Task Force were working in
functional areas similar to the work that needed to be done in the Task Force.
Several of these employees had never worked in the work programs area before,
had not worked in the area for some time, or had worked in one area of work
programs, but not in others. A description of the work of these eight employees
follows.

Martha Kirby is formally assigned as a family assistance program specialist
in the Special Program's Branch, Office of Policy and Evaluation, OFA. The
Special Programs Branch continues to exist on paper, but has no staff. Prior to
the detail, her primary duties there involved answering questions on policy
issues involving the work incentive program, the work incentive demonstration
program and the Job Training Partnership Act. When Kirby was originally detailed
to the Task Force, she was assigned to the operations unit. She expressed
concern that she had never been in operations before and preferred policy. She
was told that her experience was needed, but when an opportunity came for her to
go into policy, management would accommodate her interests. Kirby was also
concerned because she required child care and knew that more travel was required
in operations. Management assured her that she would not be required to travel.

Since being assigned to the Task Force, Kirby has been required to perform
several tasks she has never done before, among them marketing, preparing for
training, side-by-side analysis of legislation, the preparation of a briefing
book in areas with which she is not familiar, and research in new program areas.
In late February 1987, Ms. Kirby was placed in the policy and research unit of
the Task Force, as promised. There she is still working on issues involving the
Job Training Partnership Act, the WIN program and the WIN demonstration program
as before, but also has assignments in the areas of community work experience
program, grant diversion and job search, areas she did not work in previously
and which requires that she do more research before answering inquiries.
Although required to perform different tasks, she has not been asked to perform
any duties outside those generally described in her position description.

Susan Greenblatt is formally assigned as a program liaison specialist in the
Division of Welfare Management, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, OFA. The
Division now [ v30 p5 ] has no staff. In her position of record, she was
responsible for liaison activities with the regions, and she was also in charge
of putting out publications, planning conferences and meetings, and promoting
good management practices. Ms. Greenblatt was detailed to the Task Force,
operations unit. She is still working in the same functional areas as she did in
her position of record. she is helping to manage workshops and has also
developed a guide to the best work programs practices.

Joanne Fradkin is formally assigned as a program analyst in the Division of
Welfare Management, Office of Intergovernmental Communications, OFA, which, as
noted, now has no staff. In her position, she is involved in developing training
materials and publications and has some involvement with planning workshops and
conferences. Ms. Fradkin was detailed to the Task Force, operations unit. On the
Task Force, she has been working on helping to plan workshops and in developing
a best practices guide for work programs. Instead of working in all areas of
welfare management, she is now focusing on work programs. She has not been
assigned any duties outside those listed in her official position description.

Patricia Fells is formally assigned as a family assistance communication
specialist in the Office of Intergovernmental Communications, OFA, which, as
noted, now has no staff. In this position she was involved in responding to
Congressional inquiries and responding to correspondence from welfare clients
relating to all aspects of family assistance and OFA operational activities. She
was chosen for the Task Force because her writing skills and knowledge of
Congressional activities would be useful in the work programs area. On the Task
Force, Ms. Fells is primarily responsible for responding to correspondence
involving work programs instead of all aspects of OFA operations.

Suzanne Marion is a program analyst in the Technical Assistance Branch,
Office of State Operations, OFA. in her position of record, she identified and
evaluated good work practices and analyzed operational aspects of how agencies
were administering work programs. She also wrote best practice manuals. She was
the lead analyst on a number of projects relating to operational administrative
work.

On the Task Force, Ms. Marion is the project officer for a number of research
and demonstration projects in the policy unit. She examines how the states are
operating their programs and evaluates whether their operations method [ v30 p6 ]
actually test the hypothesis the state is attempting to test from a policy
standpoint instead of whether the program is working well from an operational
standpoint. The skills she employs now are the same as she employed in her
position of record. She is not performing any duties beyond those listed in her
position description.

Katherine Simpson is a program analyst in the Division of Research,
Evaluation and Statistics, OFA. She was detailed to the Task Force because she
had skills in gathering data and statistics relating to all AFDC programs.

On the Task Force, Simpson is responsible for collecting data on WIN
demonstration projects. Ms. Simpson manages the data base and collects the
information from the states and regions as part of the Task Force's monitoring
and data collection efforts. Her duties on the Task Force re substantially
similar in her position of record.

Leona Barbaro is a program analyst in the Technical Assistance Branch, OFA.
On the Task Force, Ms. Barbaro works in research and demonstration. She is in
charge of or monitors about 20 research projects. On the Task Force, she is not
performing duties beyond those listed on her position description.

Gay Morris is a program analyst in the Division of Research, Evaluation and
Statistics, OFA. Ms. Morris has been acting in a team leader capacity for the
past year. On the Task Force, she is again in an acting supervisory capacity.

In the several months since the Task Force was first established at least
three employees have been sent out into the field for program specific training
sessions so they would be equipped to handle assignments other than the ones in
which they have specialized. Others in the Task Force may be similarly trained
in areas new to them.

Although the detail was originally scheduled to last 120 days, employees were
advised that it might be extended, and it has been extended. On December 31,
1986 OFA issued a memorandum which stated, in part, "We hope that this task
force will be officially established as a permanent division within the next few
months as part of OFA's newly proposed structure."

The reorganization of OFA was still pending as of the date of the hearing.
OFA does plan to have a Work Programs [ v30 p7 ] Division. The Union has
negotiated with Respondent concerning geographical relocations in connection
with the proposed reorganization of FSA, but not on its proposals regarding
reassignments, including details.

Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Where an agency, in exercising a management right under section 7106 of the
Statute, changes conditions of employment resulting in an impact on unit
employees, or such impact was reasonably foreseeable, the agency is obligated
under the Statute to provide adequate prior notice to the exclusive
representative and, upon request, bargain concerning procedures to be utilized
in implementing such changes and/or appropriate arrangements for unit employees
adversely affected by such changes, pursuant to section 7106(b)(2) and (3). 3
See U.S. Government Printing Office, 13 FLRA No. 39 (1983).

In Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration,
24 FLRA No. 42 (1986), petition for review filed sub nom. American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 1760 v. FLRA, No. 86-1702 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 17, 1986),
the Authority reassessed and modified the de minimis standard previously used to
identify changes in conditions of employment which require bargaining. The [ v30 p
8 ] Authority stated that in order to determine whether a change in conditions of
employment requires bargaining, the Authority would carefully examine the
pertinent facts and circumstances presented in each case; and that in examining
the record, principal emphasis would be placed on such general areas of
consideration as the nature and extent of the effect or reasonably foreseeable
effect of the change on conditions of employment. The Authority also stated that
equitable considerations would be taken into account in balancing the various
interests involved; that the number of affected employees and the parties'
bargaining history would be given limited application; and that the size of the
bargaining unit would no longer be applied.

The General Counsel and the Charging Party contend that Respondent violated
section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by establishing the Work Programs Task
Force without providing the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain because a
change in conditions of employment was reasonably foreseeable and more than de
minimis. They contend that most employees are performing different tasks and
duties, working in new programs, reporting to different supervisors, and some
training for their new responsibilities has involved increased travel. The Union
asserts that the changes in working conditions were sufficient to trigger FSA's
duty to bargain over the selection process and over potential adverse impact due
to inadequate training, increased travel, and the promotion effects on all
employees in the bargaining unit.

Respondent defends on the basis that no duty to bargain arose because the
decision to detail the bargaining unit employees had no more than a de minimis
impact. Respondent contends that the details were temporary reassignments and
resulted in no change in pay or grade, work hours, or office space. Respondent
points out that seven of the 15 unit employees are performing their exact same
duties, and the remaining eight are performing substantially similar duties to
those they were performing before, in no case beyond these listed in their
position descriptions. Respondent argues that there is no evidence of any
adverse impact on the employees' leave, promotional opportunities, or ability to
achieve a satisfactory performance rating. Respondent asserts that the detail
resulted in all work programs functions being removed to the Task Force, and
there is no evidence that the creation of the Task Force affected the workload
of remaining bargaining unit employees. [ v30 p9 ]

The record reflects that the initial detail was not to extend beyond 120
days, or four months. This is not an insignificant period of time. Added to the
significance of this period of time was the expressed hope of the Acting
Director in the early stages of the detail that the Task Force would be
officially established as a permanent division. This expression was consistent
with the fact that the early personnel screening for the division had been used
to create the Task Force and the Task Force had consolidated all work program
activities. As a result, some offices from which employees were detailed are no
longer functioning. The Task Force was described from the beginning as a "major
initiative" by which the new objectives of FSA could be accomplished. Since the
FSA goal has always been the establishment of a permanent Work Programs
Division, it is clear that the detail was known from the outset to be more
recurring or permanent than temporary, and it has been extended. Given these
circumstances, the selection of employees for the Task Force had the potential
to affect employee career and promotional opportunities both inside and outside
the Task Force and was a matter which the Union should have had an opportunity
to address. Instead, FSA's intention to implement the detail of employees to the
Task Force was withheld from the Union despite a Union-management meeting only
three days before.

While seven employees are performing the same duties as before, and eight
bargaining unit employees are not performing duties beyond those listed
generally in their position descriptions, the record shows that many of the
eight employees have been required to perform new tasks and take on new
responsibilities under new supervisors. The assignment of new tasks and new
responsibilities was reasonably foreseeable and has a potential to adversely
impact on employees' performance ratings. FSA acknowledges that training has,
and will be, given as required in order for employees to handle new
responsibilities and that it involves travel to the field. It is also noted that
employee Kirby was concerned about the possibility of increased travel because
of her detail to the operations unit where more travel is generally required.

Applying the Authority's revised standard to the facts and circumstances in
this case, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that implementation of
the detail resulted in a change in conditions of employment having an impact or
a reasonably foreseeable impact on bargaining unit employees which gave rise to
an obligation to bargaining. It is concluded that Respondent, by detailing
employees of [ v30 p10 ] the Office of Family Assistance to a Work Programs Task
Force without providing the Union prior notice and an opportunity to bargain,
pursuant to section 7106(b)(2) and (3), concerning procedures which management
officials of the Agency would observe in implementing such changes and/or
appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by such changes,
engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of
the Statute, as alleged.

Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, it is recommended that the
Authority issue the following Order:

Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations Authority's Rules
and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, it is hereby ordered that the
Department of Health and Human Services, Family Support Administration shall:

1. Cease and desist from:

(a) Failing and refusing to negotiate in good faith with the National
Treasury Employees Union, the exclusive representative of its employees,
concerning procedures to be observed and appropriate arrangements for bargaining
unit employees adversely affected by the detail to the Work Programs Task Force
in the Office of Family Assistance.

(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of rights assured by the Federal Service Labor -
Management Relations Statute.

2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the purposes
and policies of the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute:

(a) Upon request, negotiate in good faith with the National Treasury
Employees Union, the exclusive representative of its employees, concerning
procedures to be observed and appropriate arrangements for bargaining unit
employees adversely affected [ v30 p11 ] by the detail to the Work Programs Task
Force in the Office of Family Assistance.

(b) Notify the National Treasury Employees Union, the exclusive
representative of its employees, prior to changing conditions of employment
resulting in an impact on unit employees and, upon request, bargain in good
faith with such representative to the extent consistent with law and regulation.

(c) Post at its facilities copies of the attached Notice on forms to be
furnished by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Upon receipt of such forms,
they shall be signed by a responsible official and shall be posted and
maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all bulletin boards and other places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such Notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.

(d) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations,
notify the Regional Director, Region III, Federal Labor Relations Authority,
Washington, D.C. in writing, within 30 days from the date of this Order, as to
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

We have been found by the Federal Labor Relations Authority to have committed
an unfair labor practice. We have been ordered to post this Notice and abide by
its provisions.

WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to negotiate in good faith with the National
Treasury Employees Union, the exclusive representative of our employees,
concerning procedures to be observed and appropriate arrangements for bargaining
unit employees adversely affected by the detail to the Work Programs Task Force
in the Office of Family Assistance.

WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the Federal Service
Labor - Management Relations Statute.

WE WILL, upon request, negotiate in good faith with the National Treasury
Employees Union, the exclusive representative of our employees, concerning
procedures to be observed and appropriate arrangements for bargaining unit
employees adversely affected by the detail to the Work Programs Task Force in
the Office of Family Assistance.

WE WILL notify the National Treasury Employees, the exclusive representative
of our employees, prior to changing conditions of employment resulting in an
impact on unit employees and, upon request, bargain in good faith with such
representative to the extent consistent with law and regulation.

Footnote 3 Section 7106(b) provides in pertinent part:
7106. Management rights (b) Nothing in this section shall preclude any agency
and any labor organization from negotiating-- (2) procedures which management
officials of the agency will observe in exercising any authority under this
section; or (3) appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by the
exercise